Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).

What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?

Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?

Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).

It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.

Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.

So please do.

I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.

I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.

Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.

If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).

What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?

Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?

Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).

It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.

Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.

So please do.

I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.

I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.

Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.

If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).

What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?

Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?

Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).

It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.

Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.

So please do.

I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.

I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.

Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.

Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.

Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.

If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).

What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?

Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?

Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).

It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.

Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.

So please do.

I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.

I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.

Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.

Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.

Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.

So how does a child come to understand language?

Not through rules sets and lectures.

Sides, I ain't finished yet. And really not everyone can understand everything.

Do you understand basketball well enough to play in the NBA? Can Lebron explain basketball well enough to enable you to?

There is a difference between understanding and doing something which relies on understanding like intelligibility or cognition.

If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).

What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?

Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?

Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).

It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.

Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.

So please do.

I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.

I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.

Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.

Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.

Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.

So how does a child come to understand language?

Not through rules sets and lectures.

Sides, I ain't finished yet. And really not everyone can understand everything.

Do you understand basketball well enough to play in the NBA? Can Lebron explain basketball well enough to enable you to?

There is a difference between understanding and doing something which relies on understanding like intelligibility or cognition.

This is essentially what I am getting at with Aesch.... In your terms, I am groping for an understanding of the words translated life, death, destruction in their Biblical usage. Aesch...'s continual recourse to dictionary entries indicates to me that her comprehension of the Greek words is limited to equating them with English words that she understands.

In the end, since we are writing in English, our only recourse is to try and use English words we understand to give ourselves clues about the meanings of Greek words that we perhaps don't understand.

How would you answer my problems with the "spiritual death" interpretation? ("Scripture says that eternal life is a gift of God only for the righteous, and though I'll agree that scripture doesn't say that eternal life is only eternal existence (it's also communion with God, etc.), it doesn't follow that death is therefore only figurative. Even though the Bible sometimes compares those without God to the dead, it doesn't follow that therefore their final punishment (the second death) is the same as their state now (separation from God/spiritual death). If it were like that, then why would it be called the "Second Death"? Did they rise to spiritual life and get to know God in between deaths? Furthermore, according to that view, their spiritual death started before their actual first death, so not only is the final punishment not a second death like the Bible says, it actually started before the first death!")

As for Paul, I think that when he was only speaking metaphorically about death it was much more clear than when people say that the eschatological scriptures about death are metaphorical.

Paul said that we are saved through union with Christ in his death. It is one of his central doctrines, and arguably the crux of his theological system. (<--see what I did there?) Calling it a metaphor is a real stretch. It is hard to imagine that Jesus had to die bodily so that we could die metaphorically.

Hence, when Paul was expecting to be executed, he never said he was going to die. He couldn't: he was already dead (to the world, and thus alive to God).

I wasn't talking about that when I was talking about Paul and metaphorical death. I was talking about when he was saying a sinful woman was "dead" in her sins.

How would you answer my objection about how in your view, the Second Death wouldn't be "second" at all?

Where did I say there was no second death?

When you say that the final punishment of the wicked is not literal death but spiritual death, you are saying that the Second Death isn't really a second death at all, since the unsaved were dead in that sense all along. Remember when I said "Even though the Bible sometimes compares those without God to the dead, it doesn't follow that therefore their final punishment (the second death) is the same as their state now (separation from God/spiritual death). If it were like that, then why would it be called the 'Second Death'? Did they rise to spiritual life and get to know God in between deaths? Furthermore, according to that view, their spiritual death started before their actual first death, so not only is the final punishment not a second death like the Bible says, it actually started before the first death!"?

When did I say the "second death" is only "spiritual"? I've been saying more or less the opposite. Only you are using the notions of spiritual vs. literal death. Sure, there are different senses in which the word "death" is used, but they necessarily have some common, underlying essential idea. This is where that intuition I was talking about (which is not a feeling) clearly plays a role.

The "second death" really shouldn't be brought into this discussion to begin with. It's an expression found only in Revelation, which is fraught with figures and metaphors.

Why shouldn't it be brought into the discussion? The Second Death is about final punishment, and we're talking about final punishment. If you want to throw out Revelation because it's many metaphors, you'll have to throw out the verses that many ECT proponents consider the most powerful proofs for their position. The only Bible verses that explicitly say that the unsaved humans will be tormented forever are in Revelation. In fact, if those Revelation verses didn't exist, there might well not be a widespread ECT view at all.

You're saying that the Second Death is spiritual when you say that the unsaved die spiritually, but go on being conscious and being tormented.

If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).

What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?

Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?

Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).

It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.

Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.

So please do.

I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.

I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.

Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.

Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.

Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.

So how does a child come to understand language?

Not through rules sets and lectures.

Sides, I ain't finished yet. And really not everyone can understand everything.

Do you understand basketball well enough to play in the NBA? Can Lebron explain basketball well enough to enable you to?

There is a difference between understanding and doing something which relies on understanding like intelligibility or cognition.

This is essentially what I am getting at with Aesch.... In your terms, I am groping for an understanding of the words translated life, death, destruction in their Biblical usage. Aesch...'s continual recourse to dictionary entries indicates to me that her comprehension of the Greek words is limited to equating them with English words that she understands.

In the end, since we are writing in English, our only recourse is to try and use English words we understand to give ourselves clues about the meanings of Greek words that we perhaps don't understand.

Are you saying that the Greeks (and the Hebrews that talked about Hebrew concepts in Greek) had no concept of death (the literal kind that happens when you drown or are caught in an explosion or whatever that results in loss of consciousness) that they had a word for?

If by the root meaning you mean the meanings of the roots taken separately, then combined ["apo" (away from), "ollumi" (destroy) which comes from the base "olethros" (destruction resulting in death), right?], that doesn't really matter. The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology. I can think of some words that are used differently than their root meanings (like "gay," for example).

What makes you think that the meaning of the word in Biblical or Classical usage is different from the root meaning?

Remember how one of its most important meanings (or maybe the most important meaning) of the word is to die literally?

Get past the dictionary. Dictionaries and lexicons don't tell you what words mean, at least not abstract ones. They can only guide you towards an understanding of the meaning.

To understand the meanings of such words, including in one's native language, requires an exercise of the intuition. It's more than just connecting the dots in dictionary entries (anybody can do that).

It's not just the dictionary definition, that's true. But intuition isn't really a good exegesis tool since human feelings are notoriously unreliable. The context should work along with dictionary definition towards the exegesis, not intuition.

Rufus is a lot more patient and kind than I could ever be. Although, in this one case, I do think I could do a better than he.

So please do.

I would rather assign some basic reading in hermeneutics, cause I doubt anyone cares. After all, other than myself, my buddy, Zizek evidently, and maybe Rufus understood Rumsfeld brilliant unsaid punchline about WMDs?

The only things that really matter as far as the meaning is concerned is the usage, not roots or etymology.

I would (dis)agree completely with this statement.

What if my usage (and indeed everyone's usage is) is affected and informed by what you call roots and etymology?

Even if we could imagine a person's usage which was not explicitly informed by roots and etymology, once they do become aware of such matters such as roots and etymology, it is too late. Their understanding has indeed altered in light of that realization.

So it is not a matter of whether roots and etymology matter, it is how.

Since I can only determine we are discussing death within the context of a text which all parties agree where the word death doesn't occur in all translations, we are brought into the realm of a hermeneutics which requires a bit more precision than has been put forth.

I think Rufus is right to insist that the discussion find its beginning in what death means in some manner which allows all other senses to flow from it. Where one starts doesn't matter as much as one stays without staggering too far from the course toward what death means.

Sorry, Norm, but I think Rufus bested you on this. His writing is a lot easier to comprehend.

Sorry Peter but intelligibility is the enemy of understanding.

Maybe in your world. In my experience, communicating your thoughts clearly so your audience can comprehend them is the key to understanding.

So how does a child come to understand language?

Not through rules sets and lectures.

Sides, I ain't finished yet. And really not everyone can understand everything.

Do you understand basketball well enough to play in the NBA? Can Lebron explain basketball well enough to enable you to?

There is a difference between understanding and doing something which relies on understanding like intelligibility or cognition.

Why shouldn't it be brought into the discussion? The Second Death is about final punishment, and we're talking about final punishment. If you want to throw out Revelation because it's many metaphors, you'll have to throw out the verses that many ECT proponents consider the most powerful proofs for their position. The only Bible verses that explicitly say that the unsaved humans will be tormented forever are in Revelation. In fact, if those Revelation verses didn't exist, there might well not be a widespread ECT view at all.

You're saying that the Second Death is spiritual when you say that the unsaved die spiritually, but go on being conscious and being tormented.

I have never taken up that position in this thread, and have argued flat-out against it several times.

Why shouldn't it be brought into the discussion? The Second Death is about final punishment, and we're talking about final punishment. If you want to throw out Revelation because it's many metaphors, you'll have to throw out the verses that many ECT proponents consider the most powerful proofs for their position. The only Bible verses that explicitly say that the unsaved humans will be tormented forever are in Revelation. In fact, if those Revelation verses didn't exist, there might well not be a widespread ECT view at all.

You're saying that the Second Death is spiritual when you say that the unsaved die spiritually, but go on being conscious and being tormented.

I have never taken up that position in this thread, and have argued flat-out against it several times.

Paying attention to what people are saying helps.

Sorry I haven't replied in so long. I kinda forgot about this because of schoolwork and stuff.

Anyway, I really don't understand how you're not arguing for a spiritual or figurative death. When you say that something is dying in a way that isn't included in the normal definition of the word, it's figurative. When you say that a person is dying when they're being tormented consciously forever, you're not using the normal definition of the word.

I don't think we're really getting much from this discussion, so I'm bowing out now. Goodbye, and thanks for discussing with me!

Been skimming through trying to find any references to the Fathers. Didn't see any. Would be good to get their input, no?

I'm pretty sure at least St. John Chrysostom and Justin Martyr believed in eternal torment, although I also remember other Fathers saying things which indicated something else.

I'm still working on something semi-related I suppose (materiality), but I don't think that's what you're asking about. What, specifically, would you like to see quotes on?

Basically, I would like to see any quotes on what they believed about the nature of hell. Perhaps this isn't the right thread for it. I did a search on the issue rather than start a whole new thread to what was probably discussed at length already.

Logged

Love is not blind; that is the last thing that it is. Love is bound; and the more it is bound the less it is blind.